Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well: it enumerates return fields, calls out the freshness field and warns to check it before relying on a component, and explains the provenance of the sources field. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and no contradictory or hidden behavior is indicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence contributes value: registry identity, return fields, freshness caveat, filter semantics, and no-argument behavior. The core action is front-loaded, and the detail is organized clearly. While it could be tightened slightly, it is dense rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it covers return fields, filter behavior, the no-arguments case, and a critical caveat about freshness. Minor omissions like pagination, sorting, or empty-result behavior are acceptable for a search tool and do not undermine selection or invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query and provides parameters with examples and conceptual framing ('discover components by what they do rather than needing to already know their ids'), but it does not add substantial parameter-level information beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the BotKelp component registry' and further identifies the component types (Next.js/Supabase/Tailwind 'Lego blocks'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_component_updates by describing the registry, search semantics, and rich return fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: filter by free-text query and/or provides capabilities to discover components by function, and call with no arguments to list everything. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.